This invention relates to the field of computer systems, and more particularly to a system and methods for dynamically rating the credibility and/or other characteristics of online electronic content.
Many people receive news, commentary, entertainment and other content online instead of, or in addition to, traditional sources such as television, newspaper and radio. Online content includes content in textual, video and multimedia formats, and providers of online content span the spectrum from large, professional “old media” institutions (e.g., CBS Nightly News) to solo individuals (e.g., bloggers, tweeters) who may provide information and content as more of a hobby than a profession.
However, discerning consumers of online information face the same concern regardless of the type of source—that of ascertaining the credibility of a given provider. Although a well-established institutional information provider may have processes and personnel in place to check facts and authenticate sources, there is no guarantee that its reporting will be more neutral and accurate than an independent blogger reporting on the same event or topic.
Many online information sources strive to eliminate bias and uphold a high level of veracity, with varying degrees of success; others make less of an effort. Thus, when a consumer reads a textual report or watches a video or multimedia report, he or she may strongly disagree with some or all of the report because of a belief or certainty that it lacks credibility, that an alleged “fact” is false or misleading, etc.
For example, an online information consumer may have personal knowledge that an asserted fact is false, may know that the reporter has reason to be biased, or may be aware of some evidence that contradicts an allegation or assertion. However, other consumers that are unaware of the same evidence may accept the report as truthful or unbiased, and have no reason to question its credibility.
Similarly, a consumer may strongly agree with an allegation or assertion, and may know of even better evidence that supports it. If the allegation or assertion is controversial, other consumers that do not know of the additional supporting evidence may doubt its credibility.
Yet other consumers may value characteristics other than credibility. For example, they may tend to evaluate or seek electronic content based on its entertainment value, its clarity, its prurience, its inclusion of sporting activities, etc.
Unfortunately, as yet there is no effective method of commenting on online content in a targeted manner (e.g., to address its credibility, accuracy, entertainment value or other characteristic) that focuses on specific portions of the content, and that makes those comments available in context (e.g., when those portions are read or viewed). Instead, comments are generally associated with a report or content item as a whole, and arguments against different portions are muddled together, thereby severing any clear links between the comments and their targets.
For example, online content venues may provide comment boards for commenting on an entire content item (e.g., a documentary, a news story on a given topic, a music video). Such tools do not make contributors' comments available to other readers/viewers in context with the portions of the content targeted by the comments, but rather are generally only seen after the content item and are thus inherently linked with the item as a whole. In addition, contributions to an online comment board tend to degenerate into a stream of unsubstantiated opinions, personal attacks and banter unrelated to the substance of the content item.
Because of the lack of explicit connection to any specific portion of a given content item, any comments, blogs, letters to the editor or other responses that directly target a specific allegation, assertion or piece of the content are generally lost among all the other comments. Thus, even if a comment is made that persuasively rebuts (or bolsters) the substance of some portion of the item, it cannot be easily uncovered, and certainly not in temporal or spatial proximity to the corresponding portion of the content item.
Further, existing venues that accept comments regarding online content do not provide means for allowing the content, or comments on the content, to be ranked or rated by readers/viewers. For example, some readers/viewers may find a news report very persuasive, or a particular comment on that report to be particularly credible, or to have an effect on their opinion of the content, and may wish to voice their admiration. Conversely, someone who strenuously rejects a proposition or assertion may desire to rate it accordingly, perhaps to make it known that the report is not entirely credible.
A user who would like to make a targeted comment on a different aspect of a content item is similarly disadvantaged. For example, he or she may desire to make an amusing comment on a specific portion of the item, or elaborate on some occurrence within the content.
Because comprehensive schemes for accumulating rankings or ratings of electronic content and/or comments on electronic content do not exist, readers/viewers are deprived of a tool that could be of great use in finding or recognizing desirable content, content providers/sources and/or commentators.